Ashley Judd's 'puffy' appearance sparked a viral media frenzy. But, the actress writes, the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women.

The Conversation about women's bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.

As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women's bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the "good" pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it's wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one's lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.

However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said. Consequently, I choose to address it because the conversation was pointedly nasty, gendered, and misogynistic and embodies what all girls and women in our culture, to a greater or lesser degree, endure every day, in ways both outrageous and subtle. The assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.

A brief analysis demonstrates that the following "conclusions" were all made on the exact same day, March 20, about the exact same woman (me), looking the exact same way, based on the exact same television appearance. The following examples are real, and come from a variety of (so-called!) legitimate news outlets (such as HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.), tabloid press, and social media:

One: When I am sick for more than a month and on medication (multiple rounds of steroids), the accusation is that because my face looks puffy, I have "clearly had work done," with otherwise credible reporters with great bravo "identifying" precisely the procedures I allegedly have had done.

Two: When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had "work done," with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who "conclude" what procedures I have "clearly" had. (Notice that this is a "back-handed compliment," too - I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!)

Three: When my 2012 face looks different than it did when I filmed Double Jeopardy in 1998, I am accused of having "messed up" my face (polite language here, the F word is being used more often), with a passionate lament that "Ashley has lost her familiar beauty audiences loved her for."

Four: When I have gained weight, going from my usual size two/four to a six/eight after a lazy six months of not exercising, and that weight gain shows in my face and arms, I am a "cow" and a "pig" and I "better watch out" because my husband "is looking for his second wife." (Did you catch how this one engenders competition and fear between women? How it also suggests that my husband values me based only on my physical appearance? Classic sexism. We won't even address how extraordinary it is that a size eight would be heckled as "fat.")

Five: In perhaps the coup de grace, when I am acting in a dramatic scene in Missing - the plot stating I am emotionally distressed and have been awake and on the run for days - viewers remarks ranged from "What the f--k did she do to her face?" to cautionary gloating, "Ladies, look at the work!" Footage from "Missing" obviously dates prior to March, and the remarks about how I look while playing a character powerfully illustrate the contagious and vicious nature of the conversation. The accusations and lies, introduced to the public, now apply to me as a woman across space and time; to me as any woman and to me as every woman.

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women's faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times - I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)

News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this "story" without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It's an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.

I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged "all knowing" stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment? How can we as individuals in our private lives make adjustments that support us in shedding unconscious actions, internalized beliefs, and fears about our worthiness, that perpetuate such meanness? What can we do as families, as groups of friends? Is what girls and women can do different from what boys and men can do? What does this have to do with how women are treated in the workplace?

I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women. It doesn't actually matter if we are aging naturally, or resorting to surgical assistance. We experience brutal criticism. The dialogue is constructed so that our bodies are a source of speculation, ridicule, and invalidation, as if they belong to others - and in my case, to the actual public. (I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time).

If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start. Who makes the fantastic leap from being sick, or gaining some weight over the winter, to a conclusion of plastic surgery? Our culture, that's who. The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it's about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in - and help change - the Conversation.

Comment: The roots of this conversation lie with the ponerization of society. In this case, the use of psychopathic tactics to promote the illusion of separation between people. One of it's goals is distract the masses from seeing the machinations of political power elites by keeping them unnecessarily fighting amongst themselves. For more information on Ponerology, see these Sott links:

While it seems many individuals on this web site have concluded everyone that harms someone else must be a pshycopath, I still think many are simply motivated by the dollar and reside in that reality. They simply don't consider the consequences of their actions other then if it will sell (call it what you want). People thrive on controversy and they judge accordingly. Ashley is a famous figure and part of that fame was produced by her looks (honest fact). With that said and based on her comments, she understands the meaningless consequences of said gain and does not base the true value of who she is or her relationships on such priorities that delude reality.

By what she has said, she has grasped that it is her creator that determines her value and not even the fame that has produced said wealth has alluded her from that understanding.

The hidden truth of the Bible resides in understanding that God's truth is the hidden treasure that can make any person eternally wealthy regardless of the percieved wealth, beauty, or circumstances in this reality. Unfortunately, most have no idea Satan has robbed them blind, merely by giving them what they desire for a mere bleep in time only to take away what they never really had at their "death".

What the eff-I think she's absolutely a beautiful lady although i am gay. I've always enjoyed her roles and find her acting to be excellent. I can now add courageous and hope she cleared up a few things with some of those a**holes. Let's hope this doesn't ruin her career.

Well there's another argument here. Fame: if you don't want the genie entire - don't rub the lamp.

I'd never heard of Ashley Judd before I read this article. I had to look her up on Wikipedia. I don't watch much TV, everyone on it looks so plastic and gormless I can hardly bear to look at it, perhaps a contributory factor to public confusion over whether she's had "work done". Although she makes a couple of fair points, in context it's little more than a self-righteous rant that doesn't translate well into the world of those with a will to live - most of whom don't give a toss whether she's had plastic surgery or not. It probably does translate well into her own public profile and is therefore not separate from what you Americans call "box office". I mean, what's she cross about? She's not cross on behalf of anyone else, she's cross 'cause someone accused her of having plastic surgery. How puffed up can you get? If someone accused me of having plastic surgery I would just laugh. I haven't plastic surgery, and that's that, and because I don't subscribe to any of this kind of nonsense, I don't feel unduly affected by it.

Ashley Judd said:

"I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time".

Karaoke, anyone?

"Stars — spectacular representations of living human beings — project this general banality into images of permitted roles. As specialists of apparent life, stars serve as superficial objects that people can identify with in order to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations that they actually live. The function of these celebrities is to act out various lifestyles or sociopolitical viewpoints in a full, totally free manner. They embody the inaccessible results of social labor by dramatizing the by-products of that labor which are magically projected above it as its ultimate goals.

The agent of the spectacle who is put on stage as a star is the opposite of an individual; he is as clearly the enemy of his own individuality as of the individuality of others. Entering the spectacle as a model to be identified with, he renounces all autonomous qualities in order to identify himself with the general law of obedience to the succession of things." - Guy Debord "The Society of The Spectacle"

Don't know what to say, when a celebrity decides to speak out against the system it's one of those, "uhmm..." moments since most benefit from it. Totally weird but I guess she is a person first and a celebrity second. She does make good points, hypersexualization is rampant. I am surprised though, she is good looking, chances are part of her getting some roles is because of how she looks. Doesn't she know this? Then it follows that the tabloids and celebrity lifestyle magazines will be all over that monitoring her with a microscope. This is just the reality.. No? Now she is complaining? After having taken the deal in the first place. I am confused.

Maybe this is just a PR stunt for her new show Missing. I gave it a go but gave up. Better to watch the Bourne films than stick it out for 20 episodes of going nowhere.

is beside the point. What AJ is speaking to is the hypersexualization of our society in general. Everyday men women and children are treated as well as treat each other as if they are property - something that someone else owns. I think most can relate to this. Every woman I know certainly can. The idea that we are not human beings but rather things is quite disturbing to me and a reflection of the psychopath's mind.

Unbeknownst to AJ, what she's experiencing is ponerization and I'm glad she took the time to speak out about it. AJ's appearances also have nothing to do with whether she has the right to say anything. If she were considered unattractive and wrote the above, it would then be argued that she's bitter and angry at not being more appealing. This is part of the issue we face today - that others are deemed worthy of a voice or not because they happen to be born at a time when their particular genetic profile is considered popular.

To me, it doesn't matter who speaks the truth as long as someone does. Even better if it's someone who's actually in a position and uses that opportunity against the system to reach the sleeping masses. Well said AJ.

"To me, it doesn't matter who speaks the truth as long as someone does. Even better if it's someone who's actually in a position and uses that opportunity against the system to reach the sleeping masses."

It doesn't quite work like that. Also, she is not strictly telling the truth.

By sitting in front of your computer, reacting as the forces of history play themselves out - you are culpable in what happens next. By investing in this woman's fake I-AM-A-STRONG-CREATIVE-WOMAN rant/career gambit/vanity explosion, you are investing in her state of non-being-ness, your own state of non-being-ness, and the state of non-being-ness in general.

Ashley Judd said:

"The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator."

"As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women's bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the "good" pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it's wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one's lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that. "

She's speaking not only in terms of how she is viewed by the media. but how were are all affected by the nonsense of it.

The point, as I see it is that women (and increasingly men) are subjected to being objectified on a daily basis. It's this pathology that she is perceiving unbeknownst to her.

Few people have the whole banana but that shouldn't disqualify them from speaking out when they have the opportunity. Being "famous" shouldn't disqualify them either.

Part of the hold psychopaths have on all of us is the illusion of being separate - an us against them mindset. Poor people hate rich people and vice versa. If not all poor people are "good",then it would stand that not all rich people are "bad". Of course, as one moves up the ladder, there are many more opportunities for being affected by ponerization but in the case of this article, I feel she's mostly on point.

If you want to speak of identification, perhaps you may want to consider your own. The vast majority of what you wrote (in your second to last post) reflects an anger towards AJ because she's famous/rich and thus less of a real person to you. So it seems that to you rich automatically equates to not being human/deserving of consideration and compassion.

Because all of us have to deal with some type of ponerized nonsense in our lives, sometimes there comes a time when a few get fed up and feel the need to speak up. Do I know what her underlying motivations are? No, and at the same time, I'm completely aware that they may be disingenuous. Unlike you, I was aware of AJ prior to this article and currently (until I know otherwise) base the validity of her statement on her prior actions and work that is supposedly separate from Hollywood.

As with everything, there is the specific situation to consider and it does no one any good to take the easy way out and lump people in boxes. It's what we all would want for ourselves. Although I think you've improved over time, some of your past posts could be construed as "rants" but in this specific situation, I'm responding to you in terms of this post. See how that works - how you yourself benefit from not being placed in a box? It's only fair to afford that to others.

Me, I can't ignore that she is heavily involved with Hollywood and that Hollywood is renowned for spin and deception. One can't help but wonder what lies underneath that highly polished, well furnished image. So I choose to be skeptical.

I should say, I understand that, that is besides the point(of the article) but regardless, its coming from a source that is highly questionable to me(Hollywood representative), so no matter how much sense it makes, I reserve the right to remain skeptical.

"She's speaking not only in terms of how she is viewed by the media. but how were are all affected by the nonsense of it."

Some more than others, you more than most, clearly. Ashley Judd is not telling the truth. You're not looking for the truth.

"Hypersexualisation" is what occured in the 1950's when Detroit churned out cars that looked like enormous gleaming phalluses in labia pink and prick-end purple. When Babylon wanted everyone to reproduce they hurled Sophia Loren and Jayne Mansfield at the men, Marlon Brando and Elvis Presley at the women, not stick insects.

"Hypersexualisation" in the given context is a misnomer, a bandwagon that's turning right, whilst indicating left. It's entirely misleading.Take the toffee hammer to it and figure it out yourself.

Well, HFL we're just going to have to agree to disagree. As I said, AJ doesn't have the whole banana and so feel that's a concession on my part. I also didn't completely agree with the recent Thoughts on Feminism article but could remove enough of myself to see the bigger picture so I think I'm fairly consistent with being able to separate the line of force in terms of these two articles.

Again, having money doesn't mean that one isn't entitled to their opinions or that their feelings are less valuable than others. The same holds true for those who don't have money. Psychopaths love and profit from the fact that we often think otherwise as it keeps us separated and distracted. At some point, someone has to make the decision to do something different. If we can't place ourselves in someone else's shoes long enough to understand that the infighting must stop and look at the bigger picture, we all lose.